The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 SAMUEL LEE GORE, Case No. 20-cv-08231-JD
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 GAVIN NEWSOM,
Defendant.
11
12
13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
14 has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
15 DISCUSSION
16 STANDARD OF REVIEW
17 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
18 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
19 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
20 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek
21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se
22 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
23 Cir. 1990).
24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
25 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed
26 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to
27 relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
1 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations
2 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
3 face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”
4 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
5 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
6 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
7 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
9 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
10 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
11 LEGAL CLAIMS
12 Plaintiff seeks to overturn his conviction and to obtain money damages. “‘Federal law
13 opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas
14 corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979,
15 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to particulars
16 affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579
17 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s challenge to the
18 circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id.
19 Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier
20 release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson
21 v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards
22 v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “Where the
23 prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought
24 under § 1983.’” Skinner, 562 U.S. at 533-34 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). In fact, a § 1983
25 action is the exclusive remedy for claims by state prisoners that do not “lie at the ‘core of habeas
26 corpus.’” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411
27 U.S. at 487). A claim that meets the statutory criteria of § 1983 may be asserted unless it is within
1 shorten its duration.” Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Preiser, 411
2 |} US. at 500).
3 Plaintiff identifies various errors from his 2002 conviction that he states should lead to his
4 || release from prison and he seeks money damages as a result. Plaintiff was convicted in San
5 || Bernardino County which is in the Central District of California. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated
6 || in the Eastern District of California. To the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge his conviction, he
7 must file a habeas petition in the Central District. Plaintiff may only obtain money damages once
8 || his conviction has been overturned or expunged. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
9 (1994). To the extent plaintiff seeks to file a civil rights complaint regarding the conditions of his
10 || confinement, he must seek relief in the Eastern District where he is currently incarcerated.
11 Because no amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies noted above, plaintiff will not be
12 || provided leave to amend. He may file a new action in a different district.
13 CONCLUSION
14 The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may seek relief in a different
3 15 district based on the type of case he wishes to file. The Clerk is requested to close this action.
a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 17 |) Dated: February 22, 2021
19
JAMES TO
20 United Stafes District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28